CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 08, 2015 01:03 PM UTC
31 Comments
Ahhh, Mark Waller…..the man who will be forever known as the wedge between Douglas Bruce and Gordon Klingenschmidt in the history of El Paso County legislative delegation.
So you're saying that Mark Waller is the representative taint of HD 15?
eewwww! Why did I click on "taint".
At least there isn't a picture.
Triple eewwwww! OK. How's this? At least there's not a scratch and sniff. Top that if you can.
Perhaps this current crop of Repugs have evolved from dogs and not monkeys? Who'd have thunk that Chappy had an extra organ?
And, surprising no one (at least I hope no one is dumb enough to be surprised), Miss Lucy with the Football herself, Susan Collins, always holding out hope that this time she might really break with the party of opposition to anything and everything just because and be the one Republican vote to come over when it actually matters, has finally announced a definite "no" on supporting the Iran deal.
What a surprise? How much time has been wasted over this lady in the past 6+ years? Sure, once in a blue moon she may vote against her party but only when doing so makes no difference.
In this case, it's still possible that Dems won't get 41 out of the 41 votes to support the deal to also support filibuster. With Collins making 42, or even 43 if Cantwell joins the supporters of the deal, it would very likely be enough for a filibuster even if Coons refused to join it and of course Collins never would. Collins is what passes for the most moderate R in the GOP caucus and even she falls in line whenever the rest need her to. Always has. When push comes to shove there is no difference between having her or the most rabid rightie wacko in that seat.
Don't know what I did wrong. The second is my edited version with an addition at the end that I somehow lost or at least it didn't seem to post. So I reposted my original which I had copied as I do these days because of glitches to be on the safe side. I see they both posted. Sorry.
It's not just Colorado, several states are joining together for the Defund Iran initiative. If this bad deal can't be stopped at the federal level, individual states can choose not to participate. Unfortunately, that won't save those states from an Iranian terrorist attack that the deal makes much more likely.
So Modster, if several states decide to withhold practical support for a duly voted-upon foreign policy involving high stakes diplomacy, how is that not treachery?
Would you not have been all a-dither about "unpatriotic liberals" if Colorado, say, or the Republic of Boulder, had voted not to allow the state to send soldiers to Iraq, or to allow contractors to contract for supplies?
Just once, I'd like to see one of these guys swagger up to a mic and sneer, "I'm a goddamn traitor. I'm not patriotic, and I'm proud of it."
You don't think liberals would have voted for that if they had the chance? Of course they would. And you would defend their right to do it.
This isn't about winning a UN popularity contest, it's about protecting our ally Israel and not rewarding terrorists. I will always stand up for a strong America that doesn't give away the farm to our enemies. That doesn't make me a traitor, it makes me a patriot.
Ah, yes. Israel. That nation with one of the more liberal abortion policies in the entire world. How about you promote a ballot initiative to ban abortions in Israel or cut off their aid?
And completely socialized medicine. In fact a far more socialist country than many of the right's favorite countries to bash for socialism in Europe. An economy more government regulated than anything even the most liberal Democratic President or Congress member, including "extreme" Bernie Sanders, has ever come close to suggesting. Not very big on freedom in terms of guaranteed rights either. Certainly not religious what with 90% of Israeli Jews being entirely secular. Why is it again that the right's so staunch for Israel? Oh yeah. End times, etc.
Liberals would never get a chance to vote against a deal because Conservatives would rather bomb than negotiate. I know geopolitics and international relations are a tough subject for someone with a worldview that doesn't extend beyond their front door, but your gunboat diplomacy got Iran closer to the bomb then this deal ever will.
Stall their nuclear weapons ambitions, open them up to the free market. Freer markets create free people – isn't that what you conservatives are supposed to believe?
Lest we forget the Bush Doctrine… (a/k/a bombing for peace, which is about as effective as fucking for virginity)
Freedumb!!!Bombs away….Here I always thought The Bush Doctrine was, "What Me Worry"? …
Mods, I'm curious as to whether you would stand up as staunchly for the rights of states or municipalities to cast liberal protest votes against Federal foreign policy.
Bluecat's right that it's a fairly meaningless exercise, if it’s only a “protest vote”, but that hasn't stopped places like Boulder or Vermont or New Hampshire from declaring that they will divest state funds from apartheid, or the Iraq war, or now fossil fuels.
. Divestment eventually turned the tide against apartheid in South Africa, and it’s having an impact on financing fossil fuel exploration ventures.
Is it only treachery when liberals do it? Is it only treachery when it is anti-war? Is it only treachery when it undermines support for whichever brutal dictator the US is propping up? Is it only treachery when it cuts into corporate profits? Inquiring mind (mine) wants to know.
"whether you would stand up as staunchly for the rights of states or municipalities to cast liberal protest votes against Federal foreign policy…"
Or even municipalities casting liberal protest votes against federal domestic policy. Look at what happened when D.C. tried to enact gun safety legislation at the local level. The wing nuts went to court to challenge it.
…or legalizing marijuana in the shadows of Capitol Hill.
Don't you just love it when a smart, accomplished woman takes on a 19th-century moron and tells him to pound sand:
And poor Julesburg is in their missile sight line.
Here's hoping that Colorado Springs is a close second …
Some Republican aren't "Colorado" and foreign policy can only be conducted by the government United States of America, the entity you righties all hypocritically claim allegiance to whose only government is the federal government.
They run the Obamacare death panels, right…? Now I am beginning to see the connection….very clever…
If this is what you believe, modster, then don't ever call yourself an American patriot again. We aren't just a bunch of separate states. We are united in one nation, the United States of America, the federal government is the government of that nation and has sole authority in all areas of foreign policy. If you stand for states going their own way on foreign policy matters you are no different than those who waged war on the United States of America to go their own way on slavery and can in no way claim to love your country or claim to love the country's constitution. Period.
We really need to start teaching civics in school again. This is getting ridiculous. Between this, claims that there is some kind of debate over whether the constitution guarantees birthright citizenship, Huckabee claiming that though the Supreme Court ruled that same gender couples can't be discriminated against when they seek to marry it doesn't count until states pass new legislation and that laws don't have to be obeyed unless you think they're right, the level of nutty nonsense and the gullibility of the ignorant populace that buys it has gotten completely out of hand.
whatever reservations I had about this agreement ended today when Dick Cheney launched his verbal jihad against it……
While Rs decided to be against anything Obama wanted, whether it was good for the country or not, because they were dedicated to his failure over all other considerations, being against whatever Cheney is for is always a good bet because … you know…. he's evil incarnate.
There is a broader and more important narrative here, and it favors the Democratic Party. Since the Republicans in Washington, DC are against everything and anything President Obama supports and they block him at every turn, they have become more than obstructionists in the mind of voters. Through their never ending vitriol and corresponding failure to govern, they have painted themselves into a corner as the party that refuses to address our nation's problems and opportunities.
The more Republicans complain and whine about President Obama's executive orders and federal agency regulations, they paint themselves even more into a corner and the contrast they draw is obvious: The Democrats are actually getting things done while the Republicans are not. The Democrats are governing while the Republicans let things drift. The Democrats address opportunities and problems while the Republicans refuse to do so.
It is also why a person like Donald Trump is succeeding in the Republican race for the nomination. Look past his bluster. He has actually addressed some important issues. On taxes, he favors the graduated income tax and he said last week without it, the tax system is unfair and he said the rich should pay more than those with moderate or low income. On the treaty with Iran, he said he would treat it as a bad contract that he inherited and rather than ripping it up, he would try to improve it. Not a bad answer. Compare that to the other Republican presidential candidates. The others simply repeat the rote, staid ideology that boils down to one principle – the federal government should not exist. In other words, the federal government doesn't have any role to play in transportation, higher education, welfare or retirement policy (Social Security). At bottom, their positions are meaningless drivel that would require each of us to stick our head in the sand and deny reality.
Spot-on analysis, R36. And since Trump will most likely be the Republican nominee, much as he is despised, it's good that he has some redeeming qualities, or relatively moderate positions. I suppose that's why the Tea Party wing hates him even more than liberals do.
Yes, he has some positions that make sense but he is completely detached from reality in what he thinks a President can do or what's remotely possible in the real world of American and international policy and diplomacy in general. That could be kind of a problem. Not unlike severe dementia. I don't share your view, however, that he will "most likely" be the Republican nominee.
I just hope John Kasich flames out. He seem s the least crazy of the lot. Although I suppose I needn't worry. Crazy is what the majority of Rs seem to want these days.
Kasich is following the Jon Huntsman strategy: Write off Iowa because he's not nuts enough to be competitive with the tin foil hat crowd, finish a distant second in New Hampshire, and then drop out because that was about as good as it was going to get.